On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:47:38 +1000
Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 09:33:10PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> >
> > @@ -2413,7 +2410,7 @@
> > packets_acked);
> > if (sacked & TCPCB_URG) {
> > if (tp->urg_mode &&
> > - !before(scb->seq, tp->snd_up))
> > + !before(orig_seq, tp->snd_up))
> > tp->urg_mode = 0;
>
> That looks like a typo. We should check against the new starting
> sequence number, not the original. We should also change the !before
> to after since the original check applied to end_seq.
I agree about the first part, but the second I do not.
The new 'seq' is equivalent to what end_seq would be of the
TSO sub-packet. Therefore the correct test type would be
!before(seq, tp->snd_up), right?